F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brat, this is my last response to you on this particular subject, you could have chosen to politely reply to my original question, laying out where you thought I was mistaken and why, as A Van did, but no, you instead went on (and continued to do so) a holier than thou, fanboy-esque rant which ignored everything I asked about and indeed threw in some nonsense I never even suggested!
So, you can either jog on, or continue to flap your gums (metaphorically speaking...), the choice is yours but, I'm done...
-RP
So, you can either jog on, or continue to flap your gums (metaphorically speaking...), the choice is yours but, I'm done...
-RP
You've answered your own question unless you can identify a previous weapon system that has not eventually been surpassed or countered through technological development.
... bear in mind that every weapon system is 'obsolete' from the moment it is developed because someone somewhere will have started working on a more advanced countermeasure...
You've answered your own question unless you can identify a previous weapon system that has not eventually been surpassed or countered through technological development.
You've answered your own question unless you can identify a previous weapon system that has not eventually been surpassed or countered through technological development.
Originally Posted by RUSI Aug 2015
MORE and more states around the world are buying ballistic-missile defence (BMD) capabilities...
In fact, BMD is the single new capability aspiration within the force-development work of the MoD Main Building and front-line command. The operation of UK forces in a ballistic-missile threat environment and the emergence of a formal defence requirement are likely to be jointly considered within the context of the forthcoming national Security Strategy and associated Strategic Defence and Security Review. As a result, BMD could quickly emerge as both a political and military requirement...
In fact, BMD is the single new capability aspiration within the force-development work of the MoD Main Building and front-line command. The operation of UK forces in a ballistic-missile threat environment and the emergence of a formal defence requirement are likely to be jointly considered within the context of the forthcoming national Security Strategy and associated Strategic Defence and Security Review. As a result, BMD could quickly emerge as both a political and military requirement...
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting piece on the US Army’s plans for BM systems for anti-ship purposes.
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/army-c...killers-china/
And with the F-35’s ability to link with ground based missile systems and to direct and manage them as recently demonstrated, together with the recent USMC F-35 deployment to Japan, a US counter strategy to developing Chinese naval plans, and aggressive expansion in the S China seas would seem to be evolving.
@Rhino Power
No problems with that here. Stick to the beer.
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/army-c...killers-china/
And with the F-35’s ability to link with ground based missile systems and to direct and manage them as recently demonstrated, together with the recent USMC F-35 deployment to Japan, a US counter strategy to developing Chinese naval plans, and aggressive expansion in the S China seas would seem to be evolving.
@Rhino Power
but, I'm done...
Even Einstein would need a bit more of a steer than that. What on earth are you on about?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a lighter, and slightly thread drifting note, not F-35, but a significant military aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_AZeMRqCfg.
Old farts, ‘fanboys’ do maintain an interest in, not only past, but future developments.
I met and shook General Paul Tibbet’s hand when doing a Lear Jet rating some years ago at his company facility at EJA. Executive Jet Airways was founded in 1964 as a private business jet charter and aircraft management company. The founding members of the board of directors Air Force generals Curtis E. LeMay and Paul Tibbetts Jr.,
Air power and air superiority remain keystones to military strategy in global warfare, space the new frontier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_AZeMRqCfg.
Old farts, ‘fanboys’ do maintain an interest in, not only past, but future developments.
I met and shook General Paul Tibbet’s hand when doing a Lear Jet rating some years ago at his company facility at EJA. Executive Jet Airways was founded in 1964 as a private business jet charter and aircraft management company. The founding members of the board of directors Air Force generals Curtis E. LeMay and Paul Tibbetts Jr.,
Air power and air superiority remain keystones to military strategy in global warfare, space the new frontier.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Fodplod...
Yes because it is still the most advanced system in existence.
I don't know what you mean there, and I don't think you do either. We love to use the word "advanced" because it sounds as if it means more than "newer". And what "system" are you comparing it to? Fighters? Military aircraft? Military aerospace systems?
Who can produce something equally capable any faster?
Capable at exactly what? As has been laid out in detail in this thread and elsewhere, the F-35 is not as capable as an F-22 in A2A. It can't hit moving targets very well, absent lots more time and money (and there's no fixed budget or schedule). EOTS is not as good as Litening 4 at what targeting systems do, let alone Litening 5 or Talios. And if the target's more than 400-500 miles from a safe tanker line it's no use whatsoever.
By virtue of the minds, money and other resources being applied, it is certainly better than anything else on the cards.
By this standard, we'd just award Oscars according to the production budget and Concorde would have outsold every Airbus.
Yes because it is still the most advanced system in existence.
I don't know what you mean there, and I don't think you do either. We love to use the word "advanced" because it sounds as if it means more than "newer". And what "system" are you comparing it to? Fighters? Military aircraft? Military aerospace systems?
Who can produce something equally capable any faster?
Capable at exactly what? As has been laid out in detail in this thread and elsewhere, the F-35 is not as capable as an F-22 in A2A. It can't hit moving targets very well, absent lots more time and money (and there's no fixed budget or schedule). EOTS is not as good as Litening 4 at what targeting systems do, let alone Litening 5 or Talios. And if the target's more than 400-500 miles from a safe tanker line it's no use whatsoever.
By virtue of the minds, money and other resources being applied, it is certainly better than anything else on the cards.
By this standard, we'd just award Oscars according to the production budget and Concorde would have outsold every Airbus.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By this standard, we'd just award Oscars according to the production budget and Concorde would have outsold every Airbus.
We also deal with what is...now...and in regard to future platforms, based upon present development, as opposed to vapourware. We certainly like the word ‘advanced', if justified. The F-35 is indisputably in advance of anything similar being developed by any other country at the present time.
Capability, with regard to the F-35, is indisputably evident, and not to recognise that is blinkered in the extreme.
The F-35 or item in discussion, is, an ongoing presently, in service, piece of military hardware. The naysayers, detractors and critics constantly seem to overlook this.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spain, Switzerland and Belgium in talks with LM on the F-35.
Lockheed says in talks with Spain, Belgium, others on buying F-35s | Reuters
Or are these just more infatuated ‘fanboys’.???
Lockheed says in talks with Spain, Belgium, others on buying F-35s | Reuters
Or are these just more infatuated ‘fanboys’.???
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Brat, that's a lot of words to say not very much.
We deal with what is, not with what might have been.
Deep philosophy, dude. Are you disputing my point that effort and resources aren't the sole constituents of excellence, as Fodplod seemed to be saying? Nobody's arguing that Concorde wasn't fast. It was really, really fast and its unrefueled range at supersonic speed has never been bettered. But that didn't make it a better commercial airplane than an Airbus, because the mission of a commercial airplane is to support itself aerodynamically and economically at the same time.
Capability, with regard to the F-35, is indisputably evident, and not to recognise that is blinkered in the extreme.
The F-35 is delivering some of the capability originally requested - as a stealth bomber with some A2A capability - but if you want a
ing cookie for doing this seven years late and double-digit-billions over budget you don't get it from me.
The F-35 or item in discussion, is, an ongoing presently, in service, piece of military hardware.
To be accurate, or even ongoingly and presently accurate about an item in discussion, whatever that means, it has been declared operational, but not under the criteria in the SDD contract.
We deal with what is, not with what might have been.
Deep philosophy, dude. Are you disputing my point that effort and resources aren't the sole constituents of excellence, as Fodplod seemed to be saying? Nobody's arguing that Concorde wasn't fast. It was really, really fast and its unrefueled range at supersonic speed has never been bettered. But that didn't make it a better commercial airplane than an Airbus, because the mission of a commercial airplane is to support itself aerodynamically and economically at the same time.
Capability, with regard to the F-35, is indisputably evident, and not to recognise that is blinkered in the extreme.
The F-35 is delivering some of the capability originally requested - as a stealth bomber with some A2A capability - but if you want a
ing cookie for doing this seven years late and double-digit-billions over budget you don't get it from me. The F-35 or item in discussion, is, an ongoing presently, in service, piece of military hardware.
To be accurate, or even ongoingly and presently accurate about an item in discussion, whatever that means, it has been declared operational, but not under the criteria in the SDD contract.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brat,
Your passion towards F-35 is respected and appreciated. Would be stupid to object that it is a nice, "advanced" (whatever it means) and the best (assume F-22 is out of the scope of comparison) a/c of its kind in operation/service at the moment.
However, I suppose there are many folks "here" used to strict formulations and definitions. And some of your statements seem not so solid from this standpoint.
E.g., concerning Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144 performed its maiden flight earlier than Concorde, had higher cruise speed (only about 50-100 km/hr, but still..), flew higher and had higher passsenger capacity. However, it also represented a much greater commercial failure than Concorde, and its regular flights lasted for about two years only as its costs ineffectiveness was enormous.
As for F-35, you wrote: "The F-35 is indisputably in advance of anything similar being developed by any other country at the present time."
Words such as "being developed" make your statement disputable, in turn. I do not know much about the Chinese stuff, but the Russian one is quite comparable. It is not in the serial production, but being developed and tested, indeed.
It is even more questionable to consider F-35 superiority over modern IADS's and other networked infrastructures it is supposed to deal with. The whole F-35 programme lasts for extremely long time. All the techniques and technologies (and even specific implementations and solutions) it is based on were carefully studied some 15-20 years ago by those who later implemented "opposing systems".
Your passion towards F-35 is respected and appreciated. Would be stupid to object that it is a nice, "advanced" (whatever it means) and the best (assume F-22 is out of the scope of comparison) a/c of its kind in operation/service at the moment.
However, I suppose there are many folks "here" used to strict formulations and definitions. And some of your statements seem not so solid from this standpoint.
E.g., concerning Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144 performed its maiden flight earlier than Concorde, had higher cruise speed (only about 50-100 km/hr, but still..), flew higher and had higher passsenger capacity. However, it also represented a much greater commercial failure than Concorde, and its regular flights lasted for about two years only as its costs ineffectiveness was enormous.
As for F-35, you wrote: "The F-35 is indisputably in advance of anything similar being developed by any other country at the present time."
Words such as "being developed" make your statement disputable, in turn. I do not know much about the Chinese stuff, but the Russian one is quite comparable. It is not in the serial production, but being developed and tested, indeed.
It is even more questionable to consider F-35 superiority over modern IADS's and other networked infrastructures it is supposed to deal with. The whole F-35 programme lasts for extremely long time. All the techniques and technologies (and even specific implementations and solutions) it is based on were carefully studied some 15-20 years ago by those who later implemented "opposing systems".
Brat,
Your passion towards F-35 is respected and appreciated. Would be stupid to object that it is a nice, "advanced" (whatever it means) and the best (assume F-22 is out of the scope of comparison) a/c of its kind in operation/service at the moment.
However, I suppose there are many folks "here" used to strict formulations and definitions...
Your passion towards F-35 is respected and appreciated. Would be stupid to object that it is a nice, "advanced" (whatever it means) and the best (assume F-22 is out of the scope of comparison) a/c of its kind in operation/service at the moment.
However, I suppose there are many folks "here" used to strict formulations and definitions...
Originally Posted by Business Insider UK 6 Aug 2016
"Only the pilots who have flown the fighter actually know how well the Air Force version of the F-35 can perform, and the 31 who were surveyed for this paper expressed a high degree of confidence in this extraordinary fighter," wrote the report's author, John Venable, a senior research fellow for defense policy and a retired US Air Force Thunderbird commander.
His findings: Pilots prefer the F-35.
His findings: Pilots prefer the F-35.
Originally Posted by The National Interest 26 Jun 2016
"There is nothing that I have seen from maneuvering an F-35 in a tactical environment that leads me to assume that there is any other airplane I would rather be in. I feel completely comfortable and confident in taking that airplane into any combat environment,” Lt. Col. Matt Hayden, 56th Fighter Wing, Chief of Safety, Luke AFB, Arizona, told Scout Warrior in a special pilot interview.
Furthermore, several F-35 pilots have been clear in their resolve that the multi-role fighter is able to outperform any other platform in existence.
Furthermore, several F-35 pilots have been clear in their resolve that the multi-role fighter is able to outperform any other platform in existence.
FIGHTER,really is it a fighter. Depends on terminology. Also is it or will it really outclass every other aircraft. I seriously doubt it is better than typhoon in true a2a. You only have to look at the statistics. Typhoon is lighter has a much bigger wing and much more power as well as greater range. Pilots who fly new jet will always say it is the best thing since sliced bread. It is their job after all. Let's keep things in perspective. After all the billions spent on F35 and all the years of development it should be good. The question is how long stealth and it's clever electronics can keep a very average basic platform ahead of its rivals.
Originally Posted by UK Defence Journal 31 Jan 2017
“The amount of revenue the UK will generate from the F-35 programme in its totality will create multiples of return on their investment”
The above was said Declan Holland, BAE Systems commercial director for its UK F-35 business. Holland continued, “Ultimately, the UK will take in about GBP1bn of business each year on this program.” Holland goes on to note that the program could continue into the 2040s”.
At peak, the F-35 will support 25,000 jobs in the UK over the next few decades and pump £1bn a year into the economy.
The above was said Declan Holland, BAE Systems commercial director for its UK F-35 business. Holland continued, “Ultimately, the UK will take in about GBP1bn of business each year on this program.” Holland goes on to note that the program could continue into the 2040s”.
At peak, the F-35 will support 25,000 jobs in the UK over the next few decades and pump £1bn a year into the economy.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FODPlod,
Calm down, please. Don't be so nervous. There was neither sarcasm, nor irony in my words as follows:
Thus, your argumentum ad hominem is not applicable here.
Regarding
there is no plan, let them enjoy flying it. You have your toys, we have ours, no envy.
The same about the cost (you said "expensive turkey"). If the customer is ready to pay and has money, it's his business.
I was only meaning that this aircraft is not a silver bullet.
you and your fellow F-35 doom-mongers succeed in persuading us "fanboys" that it's an expensive "turkey"
Would be stupid to object that it is a nice, "advanced" (whatever it means) and the best (assume F-22 is out of the scope of comparison) a/c of its kind in operation/service at the moment.
Regarding
what's your plan for convincing all those who've flown the aircraft, or been closely involved otherwise, such as these?
The same about the cost (you said "expensive turkey"). If the customer is ready to pay and has money, it's his business.
I was only meaning that this aircraft is not a silver bullet.